What is the best way for Locke to address this tension between the importance and the rarity of explicit consent? Should he conclude, for instance, that there are almost no actual members of political societies? Or is there a way for him to avoid that conclusion?

Explicit and Tacit Consent

Locke on explicit and tacit consent. In section 122 of Locke’s Second Treatise, Locke seems to say that a person can only be a member of a political society if that person explicitly consents to be governed by its laws. But Locke also seems sensitive to the fact that very few people actually give explicit consent to be governed; that is one possible reason for his extensive discussions of tacit consent. What is the best way for Locke to address this tension between the importance and the rarity of explicit consent? (Should he conclude, for instance, that there are almost no actual members of political societies? Or is there a way for him to avoid that conclusion?)